Talk:2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Result

I noticed the result said Minor Azerbaijani Victory, and that someone had tried changing it recently. I don't know if it's been discussed, or changed back and forth, but the analysis section seems to lean pretty heavily towards there being no real victor, with a couple of exceptions considering it a minor victory for Azerbaijan. So I changed it to reflect both positions - though if we have to go with one or the other, it is clear among these analysts the majority does not see a victor, or an important change on the ground. --RaffiKojian (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

So I went and looked back at older versions of the pages, and the word ceasefire has been there for a very long time. I'd rather keep that there unless there is some consensus to change it, since having thought about this more, I tend to think the previous result of "Ceasefire" is more accurate, since that was the result, and there was certainly no clear victory as the analysis section shows. --RaffiKojian (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The Azeris took territory, the Armenians clearly lost territory. The sources state that the Azeris have achieved their goals at least in part by retaking some territory and that the Azeri popoulation considers it a victory.XavierGreen (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
No, that's your personal understanding of what a "victory" means, but by no means can it be applied to this article as an objective truth, especially when sources don't state it as such. Sources must explicitly say what the material being added to the article in attesting. If you are adding material based on your own personal interpretation of these sources then you are WP:POVPUSHING. As it stands, the sources talk about villages being taken over by no means go so far as to say this was a Azeri military victory, let alone a "minor" one. And just because the Azeris consider it a victory doesn't mean it actually was one. Azeris consider the Yerevan as part of Azerbaijan, should we incorporate that as part our encyclopedia too? The answer is obvious. I suggest restoring the infobox to this version. It is much more NPOV this way and we rid ourselves the problem of having POV interpretations like "victory". Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
There are a variety of sources which clearly state that the offensive ended in an Azerbaijani victory, but that the scope of their victory was minimal or minor.[[1]] [[2]], [[3]]. That the Azeris launched the offensive to retake territory and that they did in fact retake some territory is a well sourced fact. It is well sourced that the offensive is seen as a victory in Azerbaijan, because of the fact that territory was retaken. For example, "Azerbaijani society, buoyed by its sense of victory after reclaiming two strategically significant heights from Armenian side’s control, felt new confidence in its armed forces." [[4]], "In the four-day war in April 2016, the Azerbaijani side recaptured two small pockets of territory. The psychological boost the Azerbaijanis received was far bigger. The perception of a successful military offensive helped reverse two-decades-old feelings of humiliation" [[5]].XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, first off, you are presenting biased sources. "Turkishpolicy.com" is not a WP:RS. It depicts only the Azerbaijani and Turkish perspective of the conflict, hence why it is biased. And I already talked to you about Huseynov, he's not reliable either. We need neutral third-party scholars' and journalists' perspectives on the conflict. So Huseynov, who has written articles entitled "Nagorno-Karabakh: part of Azerbaijan", is not neutral. Please, don't bring him up again. And once more, I'm not denying that Azeris didn't take territory, I'm saying that it is POV to say that retaking villages is a "military victory", let alone a "minor" one because that's your personal interpretation of what it means to take villages for oneself. Another person can easily argue that the winners have less casualties and the losers have more, and that this could be an Armenian victory. Who knows? Even your sources call it a perception or a sense of a victory (i.e. "The perception of a successful military offensive", "sense of victory", etc.). Ergo, the sources say the military offensive is merely being perceived or sensed as a victory. Why are you using language that's not found in the sources? This is getting disruptive. In addition, the Analysis section makes it clear that most agree the result was largely indecisive; so Ceasefire is the only neutral description. I suggest restoring that wording. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing to indicate that the turkishpolicy article is biased.XavierGreen (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

XavierGreen, losing whatever territory the Armenians have lost does not automatically translate into a victory. Take your time to look into the Analysis section and see that there is no unanimity in scholar's opinion of Azeri victory. More commonly, they say that the status quo was preserved more or less. --Երևանցի talk 09:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the majority of the sources mentioned in the analysis section state that it was an Azeri victory, but of a limited nature.XavierGreen (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The "result - see analysis" current text seems to me to be the best solution to cover this subject. I think the results detailed in the sources are too varied and nuanced to be simplified down into a single word conclusion. Nor can territorial gain alone be used to support adding "victory". For example, is it going to be a longterm "victory" to be seen as the aggressor even if a minimal amount of territory was gained as a result of that aggression? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Casualty Count

User Исмаил Рагимов has, without stating any reason, repeatedly changed the casualty count from the well-sourced count that has been in place for a long time, largely inflating the Armenian casualties while making Azerbaijani casualties seem much smaller than they are supposed to be. Obviously, he is simply committing vandalism. However, the page editing protections were made much stricter right after his last edit, and as a result I'm unable to fix his vandalism. Can somebody who passes the 30/500 restriction please undo the edit? Achemish (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

infobox switch?

Why does the infobox switch the positions of the Armenians and Azeris at the bottom under Casualties? Everything else is Arm to the left, Aze to the right? Oversight? I will attempt to fix.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo, make sure you keep the |notes= and |campaignbox= at the bottom of the infobox when you cut-and-paste. also, you can use "show preview" to make sure you got it right before you press "publish changes". Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Biased Article

Dear Wiki users and moderators, the whole article just seems more like hit piece on Azerbaijan rather than a balanced view on the conflict, while everywhere it is mentioned that Azerbaijan's position is the reason for the start of escalation, no where it is mentioned that Armenia is not abiding by 4 UN resolutions, will not let Azerbaijani refugees return to the 7 rayons(districts) which are not part of former NKAO. Also the fact that Armenian side has ignored the phased plan of Madrid and Kazan principles, and has stressed that only way to solve the conflict is to accept NKAO as independent country. Also reasons for tensions such as illegal elections, relocation of Syrian and Lebanese Armenians is not mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.211.151.200 (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Article's title

Hello, Ehoah88880, and XavierGreen, please discuss here before editing, to avoid an edit war. Also, please, don't change the name to war before this discussion ends, which was the original name. Thanks ahead! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am against the naming scheme of “war” Ehoah88880 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ehoah88880: Quoting your edit summary: These were clashes, 200 only died and 1000+ deaths are enough to make this considered a war. Any sources calling this “2016 nagarno karabakh war” at least? (End quote.) Now, 1) the 1,000+ deaths "requirement" has no factual basis, and b) would require a rewriting of history (would you suggest moving Falklands War to Falklands skirmishes?) As for sources, there are plenty of sources in the article that refer to this as a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Now that the article has finally reached back to its previous stable title, I would ask any new title change attempts to go through WP:RM process.--Staberinde (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Madrid Principles in Background section

The reference to support false claim that Azerbaijan repeatedly rejected Madrid Principles not only doesn't support such allegation, but points to press statement from 9 March 2019, and can't be in support of any background statement for 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.241.44 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 05:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict → Four-Day War – WP:COMMONNAME, "2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" only gets 1,530 results in Google while "Four-Day War" gets 373,000. In Google Scholar, only this article uses "2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" while "Four-Day War" is mentioned by 513 articles. Super Ψ Dro 14:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Four-Day War" is the most common name for this conflict, I think it can be considered a proper name. Super Ψ Dro 23:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I see that we already have Six-Day War, Six-Day War (1899), Six-Day War (2000), Seven-Day War, and Ten-Day War, so perhaps my remark was off base. But what about the Libyan–Egyptian War? It also seems to be called the Four Day War. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what to do here then. It looks like the "Four-Day War" is overwhelmingly used for this conflict, but I'm not sure if that means the article can be moved anyway. Super Ψ Dro 12:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I actually did not check the Six-Day War article and did not realize that it had no date in its title, so this move proposal is still justified. I have searched "Four-Day War" in Google and out of the first ten pages, no website refers to the Egyptian-Libyan conflict. I have tried to search for results of "Four-Day War" from before 2016 and still I get references to this 2016 conflict for some reason. "Four-Day War" is simply much more common for this conflict than for that between Egypt and Libya. Super Ψ Dro 22:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Far too generic for such an obscure conflict. For something like the Six-Day War, universally and widely known by that name, this formulation is fine. But not for this obscure conflict (or any other obscure conflict, the other six-day wars for example). It needs a descriptive title, and the current one clearly identifies it geographically and temporally. It is far superior. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The Libyan–Egyptian War is more obscure, it got 3,217 views in the last 30 days while this one got 9,418. I also have to highlight that the Azerbaijani Wiki page is called "April War" while the Armenian one is called something similar to "Four-Day War"; neither use something like "2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict", this is simply a name given by Wikipedia that Azerbaijanis and Armenians most likely don't use in real life unlike the other two. Super Ψ Dro 22:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Super Dromaeosaurus, you're actually wrong here. The Azerbaijani wiki page reads April clashes and the term clashes is preferred by the Azerbaijanis. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, alright. Thanks for clarifying. Super Ψ Dro 11:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Four-Day War already redirects here, this conflict is already commonly known by this name.--RM (Be my friend) 20:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: per nom. ---Śαǿturα💬 13:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment I will stay neutral on this. It is technically not a war, and calling it a war is generally preferred in Armenia, not elsewhere. But note that Four-Day War has 13,800 results in Google Scholar, more than clashes and April War. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: It's not clear that this is the primary topic over Libyan–Egyptian War. Saying that [t]he Libyan–Egyptian War is more obscure, it got 3,217 views in the last 30 days while this one got 9,418 is recentism, the Libyan–Egyptian War article got more views than this article prior to the recently concluded war. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
As stated before, most of the results of "Four-Day War" (with "") in Google are related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, very few people use it for the Egyptian–Libyan War. Super Ψ Dro 17:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It looks like I didn't consider all of this article's previous titles in my search, it probably did get consistently more views than the Libya–Egypt one. Striking my !vote. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: per nom. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose:, the current name is more recognisable. I don't think it has been proven the proposed name is more common than the alternatives. Also, a lot of the results of "Four-Day War" are not referring to the name of the conflict, just to its length (eg. "in April 2016 Armenia and Azerbaijan fought a four-day war along the Nagorno-Karabakh Line" from the first result in google news [6]) Vpab15 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Very good point. Andrewa (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The evidence provided that Four-Day War is a common name rather than just a report on its length is completely demolished above. The current title is far more recognisable. Andrewa (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too generic and un-descriptive of a name, and not widely used by third parties. Many of those Google results include unrelated topics. --Steverci (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose An i descriptive name for an obscure conflict, also it would ruin the idea that there were two nagarno karabakh wars Ridax2020 (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Well if there can be five day war in georgia 2008 six day war 1967 why can't this be a war more than 300-400 people died and the fighting was way too intense for just clashes think of the as a small border war
so I guess this was a prelude between the 1988-1994 war and the 2020 war
All this was a small war to test the power of both armies 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:E1EB:B2A2:9EE9:83C5 (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 27 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict → Four-Day War – Current page title sounds bland. Proposed title is used widely and is a proper name, and it is the only "war" known with that name. Beshogur (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose, "sounds bland" is not a valid reason to move a page, and Four Day War is already a disambiguation, with two other wars known by that name. Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This name is well established. See my link. Beshogur (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I never contested the fact that it was well-established, my point is that there are other conflicts for which "Four Day War" is also a well-established name, and having it point to this specific one would cause unnecessary confusion (on top of WP:RECENTISM). Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any source for Ecuadorian Civil War of 1932 being named Four Day War. Four Day War appears for the Egyptian–Libyan War, but might be a wikipedia effect? Doesn't look sourced either. WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply here. This happened like 7 years ago, come on. Beshogur (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Support per nomination. The fact that there are other wars known by the same name does not prevent us from moving Nemoralis (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
It absolutely does, as it is not the WP:PRIMARY topic. People searching "Four Day War" shouldn't be shown this one specifically rather than any others, it should stay a disambiguation page. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Charles III is a primary topic tho, despite being pretty recent. As I told, this name is well established, for your other two, I can't see such thing. Beshogur (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
You'd have to prove that the vast majority of sources talking about a "Four-Day War" refer to this one, and that it is the conventional, most used name for this topic. Which comparing it to Charles III does neither because, come on. The burden of proof is still on you to prove your claim that it is the primary topic. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Search "four day war" on google, no one is talking about the other two. Show me otherwise. Beshogur (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per common name and reasoning for change being subpar. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
How is "2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" a common mame? Beshogur (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - The Egyptian-Libyan War is also called like that. UkraineFella (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
You know primary topics exist? Beshogur (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
What about "2016 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes"? I feel like that makes more sense and doesn’t imply it’s a separate conflict like the current title does. HappyWith (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict/Archive_2&oldid=1194790790"